2) The Assessing Officers had disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessees holding that they did not engage in the production or manufacture activity because of the reason that LPG was produced and manufactured in refineries and thereafter there was no change in the chemical composition or other properties of the Gas in the activity of filling the cylinder.
6) Insofar as process of LPG manufacturing is concerned, the AO noted that the assessee had narrated the same in the following form: LPG, which is used as a fuel for domestic purposes as well as in commercial and industrial establishments is obtained by refining of crude in the crude distillation units and Catalytic Crackers of the refinery.
The AO, thereafter, dealt with the contention of the assessee predicated on Section 10A of the Act wherein explanation mentions that manufacture includes assembling as well and assessee s case was covered by the definition of manufacture under Section 10A of the Act.
11) Learned counsel submitted that Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of the Act use the expression manufacture or production whenever industrial undertaking is either manufacturing or producing an article, it will be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid provisions, subject to satisfying other conditions laid down in those Sections.
As is clear from the facts and arguments noted above, the question of law which is involved is: Whether bottling of LPG, as undertaken by the assessee, is a process which amounts to production or manufacture for the purposes 14 of Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of the Act; and if so, whether the respondents/assessees are entitled to claim the benefit of deduction under the aforesaid provisions while computing their taxable income 15) At the outset, it needs to be emphasised that the aforesaid provisions of the Act use both the expressions, namely, manufacture as well as production.
We agree with the submission of the learned counsels for the assessees that the definition of manufacture of gas in Rule 2 of the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 also supports the case of the assessees inasmuch as gas distribution and bottling is treated as manufacturing or producing gas.
The AO committed manifest error in relying upon the said decision inasmuch as the provisions with which we are concerned in the instant case use the words manufacture or production and are not limited to manufacture alone.

Judgment

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9295 OF 2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, .....APPELLANT(S) MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9296 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9297 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9298 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9299 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9300 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9301 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9302 OF 2017 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9303 OF 2017 NEELAM GULATI Date: 2017.08.03 16:43:32 IST Reason: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9304 OF 2017 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9305 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9306 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9307 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9308 OF 2017 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9309 OF 2017 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J. question of law that arises of consideration in all these appeals, which are filed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, is identical. respondents-assessees in these appeals are engaged in process of bottling Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinders meant for domestic use. They are claiming benefit of Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). Admissibility of benefit under aforesaid provision depends upon question as to whether bottling of LPG is activity which amounts to 3 production or manufacturing for purposes of aforesaid provisions of Act. 2) Assessing Officers (AOs) had disallowed deduction claimed by assessees holding that they did not engage in production or manufacture activity because of reason that LPG was produced and manufactured in refineries and thereafter there was no change in chemical composition or other properties of Gas in activity of filling cylinder. This view was affirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), however, upset aforesaid view of AOs after finding that LPG produced in refineries cannot be directly supplied to households without bottling of LPG into Cylinders and insofar as LPG bottling is concerned, it is complex activity which can only be carried out by experts. In this light, it was noted that process involved LPG suction, vapour distribution, de-classification, compression of LPG vapour, external and internal cleaning, hydro pressure testing refilling, sealing, quality control etc. and hence activity would be manufacturing activity . In this hue, Tribunal also referred to Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 and in particular Rule 2(xxxii) thereof which defines manufacture of gas to mean filling of cylinder with any compressed gas and also includes 4 transfer of compressed gas from one cylinder to any other cylinder. On that basis, it was concluded by Tribunal that activity of filling of cylinder with compressed gas amounts to production or manufacture for purposes of Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of Act as well. High Court has concurred with view of ITAT. This is how Department is before this Court and insists that process of bottling LPG cylinder in domestic use does not amount to manufacture. 3) Before discussing aforesaid central issue which has arisen for consideration, it may be noted that Section 80-I of Act provides for certain amount of deductions in respect of profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking or ship or business of hotel or business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft to which said section applies. Section 80-IA gives similar benefits to those industrial undertakings or enterprises which are engaged in infrastructure development. Section 80HH, on other hand, entitles deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established undertaking or hotel business in backward areas. 4) As mentioned above, all assessees are in business of bottling LPG cylinder and according to them they are industrial undertakings and aforesaid process amounts to production or manufacture. 5 Since, manufacture or production of articles is sine qua non for treating these assessees as industrial undertakings and for applicability of aforesaid provisions, it is essential to establish that assessees are industrial undertakings. It is in this context question mooted above has arisen for consideration. 5) Learned counsel appearing for Revenue opened his arguments by referring to order of AO in Civil Appeal No. 9295 of 2017. He pointed out that before passing Assessment Order, AO had issued questionnaire to assessee to explain: (a) process of LPG manufacturing; (b) activities carried out in Bottling Plants; and (c) detailed submission on issue of eligibility and allowability of such case. 6) Insofar as process of LPG manufacturing is concerned, AO noted that assessee had narrated same in following form: LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas), which is used as fuel for domestic purposes as well as in commercial and industrial establishments is obtained by refining of crude in crude distillation units and Catalytic Crackers of refinery. It generally consists of butane, propane and butane and propane mixtures. In refinery, plant is fed with natural gas and crude oil. feed gas and gas undergoes chilling up to temperature of 22 degree centigrade and 37 degree centigrade. In first stage, when it is chilled to 22 degree centigrade, liquefied hydrocarbon formed is separated out and vapour is further chilled to 37 degree centigrade. 6 liquefied hydrocarbons from both stages are then fractionated in two stages. heavier fractionation is obtained from bottom of first fractionators, top product from second column is LPG, which is sent for bottling. 7) Response of assessee to question pertaining to activities carried out in bottling plants was as under: LPG is generally used for commercial/industrial applications as well as for domestic applications. While LPG is marketed to industrial customers by filling same into LPG tanks/tankwagens directly from refineries, LPG for domestic applications has to be necessarily filled into LPG Cylinders. Unless LPG is filled into cylinders, same cannot be used as domestic fuel, since LPG which is gaseous substance in ambient temperature has to be compressed into liquefied stage, flow of which shall be controlled by value fitted on to cylinder. Accordingly, in order to facilitate convenience of handling as well as to make it usable as domestic fuel, bulk LPG from refineries are transported to LPG bottling plants situated in different places, (more proximate to customers place) and then filled into cylinder by very sophisticated process. activity carried out in various LPG Bottling Plants are as below: Receipt of bulk LPG through tankers/tank wagons, its unloading and storage into spheres/bullets. Receipt of LPG Cylinders from manufacturers, distributors and repairers. Receipt of valves, regulators and consumable spare for operation/running of plants. Refilling/bottling of LPG in cylinders by compressing same into liquid. Storage of LPG packed cylinders. Despatch of packed cylinders to LPG. Distributors for illegible. 7 Maintenance/upkeeping of plant equipment to ensure smooth operation of plant. Imparting necessary training to employees, contract workmen and transporters crew to ensure safe operation/handling of LPG/LPG cylinders in plant and enroot. 8) After taking note of reply to aforesaid two questions, AO proceeded to decide as to whether assessee was industrial undertaking and whether it is manufacturing or producing article. He noted decision of Gujarat High Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Kosan Gas Company1, wherein identical facts are involved, viz. assessee therein after purchasing LPG from M/s. HPCL was refilling same into small cylinders and High Court held that said process did not amount to manufacture. AO, thereafter, dealt with contention of assessee predicated on Section 10A of Act wherein explanation (iii) mentions that manufacture includes assembling as well and, therefore, assessee s case was covered by definition of manufacture under Section 10A of Act. This contention was, however, rejected by AO by pointing out that definition of manufacture as given in explanation (iii) to Section 10A of Act is for limited purposes in context of newly established industrial undertakings in free trade zone and very explanation starts with phrase for purposes of 1 (1992) 87 STC 236 8 this section . AO further noticed that word manufacture is not defined in Act. He, therefore, proceeded to turn to legal and general definitions available elsewhere and referred to corpus juris secundum and also certain cases of this Court dealing with issue. On that basis, AO concluded that manufacture can said to be process or activity which brings into existence new identifiable and distinctive goods and commodity which is subjected to process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as original commodity but is recognised in trade as new and distinct commodity. AO also referred to legal dicta laying down principle that test is not whether what is produced as result of process carried out in plant becomes more saleable from otherwise less saleable article. Simply because process carried out on particular article adds to its value or improves its marketability on account of processes like shining, polishing, removal of impurities etc., meant by itself be sufficient to hold that product so finished is commercially different from one on which such process had been carried out. value addition, therefore, does not amount to production or manufacture. On that basis, AO concluded that since no new product had come into existence after going through process undertaken by assessees and it remained same product, namely, LPG, process of filling up of gas into cylinder 9 was not manufacturing process. 9) Heavily relying upon aforesaid reasoning of AO, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that this view is consistently taken in catena of judicial pronouncements and, therefore, should be accepted. He also referred to following judgments in support of his contention: Servo-Med Industries Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 2 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala v. Tara Agencies3. 10) aforesaid submissions were refuted by Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned counsel appearing for assessee M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. He explained LPG bottling process by pointing out that traditional source of LPG is oil refineries where crude oil is processed. LPG vapour is one of lighter fractions produced by oil refining and petrochemical processes. Since LPG typically consists of mixture of propane, propylene, butane and butylene (containing 3 or 4 carbon atoms per molecule), these hydrocarbons are easily liquefied by moderate compression at ambient temperature. Unlike natural gas which can be piped to consumer, LPG has to be transported in liquid phase at ambient temperature and, therefore, required to be handled 2 (2015) 14 SCC 47 3 (2007) 6 SCC 429 10 in specially designed pressure vessels. Once LPG vapour is subjected to moderate pressure to achieve liquefaction, resultant liquid must be contained within pressurized system or pressure vessel until it is required as gas by consumer. In vapour phase, LPG exists as heavier gas and on liquefaction, its volume reduces considerably4. 11) Learned counsel submitted that Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of Act use expression manufacture or production , therefore, whenever industrial undertaking is either manufacturing or producing article, it will be entitled to benefit of aforesaid provisions, subject to satisfying other conditions laid down in those Sections. His argument was that activities undertaken by assessees in their bottling plant results in production of new commercial product which is made suitable for domestic use, which would otherwise not be possible without undergoing such processes. Gas produced by refineries is not usable as such by consumer for domestic use. It requires several complex processes to bottle gas in cylinders to make it usable by domestic consumers. After LPG is bottled in cylinders product obtains different name, character and use which is different from its original components. domestic consumer identifies bottled LPG as product different from LPG produced 4 See Background to Liquefied Petroleum Gases, Their Sources and Safe Handling, and Safe Use as Fuels , Advanced Petrochemicals, Dr. G.N. Sarkar. 11 in refinery or from empty cylinder. Even otherwise, word production is wider than word manufacture and any activity which makes product marketable and usable to consumer would be covered by word production . Learned counsel referred to judgment of this Court in Income Tax Officer v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd.5 wherein this Court has held that word production is wider in ambit and has wider connotation than word manufacture . He also sought to draw sustenance from judgment of this Court in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P. & Ors.6 wherein this Court held that bottling of ammonia amounts to manufacture. He also took support from definition of manufacture of gas occurring in Rule 2 (xxv) of erstwhile Gas Cylinders Rules, 1981 issued under Explosives Act, 1881 which defines aforesaid expression to mean filling of cylinder with any compressed gas and also includes transfer of compressed gas from one cylinder to any other cylinder. He further pointed out that even Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 which superseded aforesaid Rules of 1981 contain identical definition of manufacture of gas in Rule 2 (xxxii). His submission was that this definition itself provides legislative intent as well as that of Central Government treating process as manufacture of gas. Mr. Gulati also argued that for purposes of Section 80-IB of Act, which provides deduction 5 (2010) 320 ITR 79 (SC) 6 (2005) 6 SCC 292 12 for industrial undertaking established in North Eastern region, Central Government has notified vide Notification No. 627(E) dated August 4, 1999, eligible industries and following entry is relevant for purposes of instant appeals: 13. Gas based intermediate products industry manufacturing or producing (i) Gas exploration and production; (ii) Gas distribution and bottling; (iii) Power generation; (iv) Plastics; (v) Yarn raw materials; (vi) Fertilizers; (vii) Methanol; (viii) Formal debycle and FR Resin Melamme and MF Resin; (ix) Methylamine, hexamethiene, tetranine, ammonium bi-carbonate; (x) Nitrite acid and ammonium nitrate; (xi) Carbon black; (xii) Polymer chips. (Emphasis Supplied) It was contended that from above, it is clear that undertaking engaged in bottling of gas is considered to be involved in manufacture or production for purpose of deductions under Act and this view has been taken by Central Government itself. 13 12) Learned counsel argued that findings of Tribunal, as upheld by High Court, were not assailed by Department and, therefore, there was no question of law involved. He also referred to few judgments of different High Courts which have taken view that LPG bottling would amount to manufacture and pointed out that in those cases, no appeal was preferred by Department. Learned counsel also endeavoured to distinguish judgment of Gujarat High Court in Kosan Gas Company s case as well as judgments of this Court which have been relied upon by learned counsel for Revenue and submitted that those judgments have no applicability. He, thus, pleaded that appeals of appellant/Revenue deserve to be dismissed. 13) Mr. Parijat Sinha, who appeared for some other assessees, argued almost on same lines. 14) We have given adequate consideration to respective submissions of both parties, which they deserve. As is clear from facts and arguments noted above, question of law which is involved (already mentioned) is: Whether bottling of LPG, as undertaken by assessee, is process which amounts to production or manufacture for purposes 14 of Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of Act?; and if so, whether respondents/assessees are entitled to claim benefit of deduction under aforesaid provisions while computing their taxable income? 15) At outset, it needs to be emphasised that aforesaid provisions of Act use both expressions, namely, manufacture as well as production . It also becomes clear after reading these provisions that assessee whose process amounts to either manufacture or production (i.e. one of these two and not both) would become entitled to benefits enshrined therein. It is held by this Court in Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. case that word production is wider than word manufacture . two expressions, thus, have different connotation. Significantly, Arihant Tiles judgment decides that cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs does not amount to manufacture. At same time, it clarifies that it would be relevant for purpose of Central Excise Act. When it comes to interpreting Section 80-IA of Act (which was involved in said case), Court was categorical in pointing out that aforesaid interpretation of manufacture in context of Central Excise Act would not apply while interpreting Section 80-IA of Act as this provision not only covers those assessees which are involved in process of manufacture but also those who are undertaking production of goods. Taking note of judgment in 15 Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa v. Sesa Goa Ltd.7 which was rendered in context of Section 32A of Act and which provision also applies in respect of production , Court reiterated ratio in Sesa Goa Ltd. to hold that word production was wider than word manufacture . On that basis, finding arrived at by Court was that though cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs did not amount to manufacture , if there are various stages through which marble blocks are subjected to before they become polished slabs and tiles, such activity would certainly be treated as production for purpose of Section 80-IA of Act. In this context, relevant discussion contained in Arihant Tiles case needs to be reproduced, which is as under: 16. In present case, we have extracted in detail process undertaken by each of respondents before us. In present case, we are not concerned only with cutting of marble blocks into slabs. In present case we are also concerned with activity of polishing and ultimate conversion of blocks into polished slabs and tiles. What we find from process indicated hereinabove is that there are various stages through which blocks have to go through before they become polished slabs and tiles. In circumstances, we are of view that on facts of cases in hand, there is certainly activity which will come in category of manufacture or production under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act. 17. As stated hereinabove, judgment of this Court in Aman Marble Industries (P) Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 279 : (2003) 157 ELT 393] was not required to construe word production in addition to word manufacture . One has to examine scheme of Act also while deciding question as to whether activity constitutes manufacture or production. Therefore, looking to nature of activity 7 (2004) 271 ITR 331 (SC) 16 stepwise, we are of view that subject activity certainly constitutes manufacture or production in terms of Section 80-IA. 18. In this connection, our view is also fortified by following judgments of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us by learned counsel appearing for Department. 19. In CIT v. Sesa Goa Ltd. [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331], meaning of word production came up for consideration. question which came before this Court was whether ITAT was justified in holding that assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 32-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of machinery used in mining activity ignoring fact that assessee was engaged in extraction and processing of iron ore, not amounting to manufacture or production of any article or thing. 20. High Court in Sesa Goa case [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331], while dismissing appeal preferred by Revenue, held that extraction and processing of iron ore did not amount to manufacture . However, it came to conclusion that extraction of iron ore and various processes would involve production within meaning of Section 32-A(2)(b)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently, assessee was entitled to benefit of investment allowance under Section 32-A of Income Tax Act. In that matter, it was argued on behalf of Revenue that extraction and processing of iron ore did not produce any new product whereas it was argued on behalf of assessee that it did produce distinct new product. 21. view expressed by High Court that activity in question constituted production has been affirmed by this Court in Sesa Goa case [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331] saying that High Court's opinion was unimpeachable. It was held by this Court that word production is wider in ambit and it has wider connotation than word manufacture . It was held that while every manufacture can constitute production, every production did not amount to manufacture. 22. In our view, applying tests laid down by this Court in Sesa Goa case [(2004) 13 SCC 548 : (2004) 271 ITR 331] and applying it to activities undertaken by respondents herein, reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that said activities would come within meaning of word 17 production . 16) Keeping aforesaid distinction in mind, let us take note of process of LPG bottling that is undertaken by assessees herein and about which there is no dispute. It has come on record that specific activities at assessees plant include receiving bulk LPG vapour from oil refinery, unloading LPG vapour, compression of LPG vapour, loading of LPG in liquefied form into bullets, followed by cylinder filling operations. stages of these activities are as under: (a) Bulk LPG is received in bottling plant through road tankers/rail wagons; (b) LPG is unloaded into spheres/bullets through LPG compressors which use variable levels of pressure for suction, unloading and vapour recovery; (c) Refilling/bottling of LPG in cylinders by compressing same into liquid form; and (d) Capping, fixing of seals and safety valves prior to storage and loading of filled cylinders. 17) Thus, after bottling activities at assessees plants, LPG is stored in cylinders in liquefied form under pressure. When cylinder valve is opened and gas is withdrawn from cylinder, 18 pressure falls and liquid boils to return to gaseous state. This is how LPG is made suitable for domestic use by customers who will not be able to use LPG in its vapour form as produced in oil refinery. It, therefore, becomes apparent that LPG obtained from refinery undergoes complex technical process in assessees plants and is clearly distinguishable from LPG bottled in cylinders and cleared from these plants for domestic use by customers. It may be relevant to point out that keeping in view aforesaid process, ITAT arrived at specific findings in support of its decision, which are as under: (a) There is no dispute that LPG produced in refinery cannot be directly supplied to consumer for domestic use because of various reasons of handling, storage and safety. (b) LPG bottling is highly technical and complex activity which requires precise functions of machines operated by technically expert personnel. (c) Bottling of LPG is essential process for rendering product marketable and usable for end customer. (d) word production has wider connotation in comparison to manufacture , and any activity which brings commercially new product into existence constitutes production. process of bottling 19 of LPG renders it capable of being marketed as domestic kitchen fuel and, thereby, makes it viable commercial product. 18) In considered opinion of this Court, aforesaid activity would definitely fall within expression production . We agree with submission of learned counsels for assessees that definition of manufacture of gas in Rule 2 (xxxii) of Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 also supports case of assessees inasmuch as gas distribution and bottling is treated as manufacturing or producing gas. We are also inclined to accept submission of learned counsel for assesses that various High Courts have, from time to time, decided that bottling of gas into cylinder amounts to production and, therefore, claim of deduction under Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA would be admissible. Another important aspect which was highlighted by learned counsels for assessees was that identical issue whether bottling of gas into cylinder amounts to production for claim of deduction under Act has been considered by various High Courts and decided in affirmative but those decisions were not challenged by Department. cases specifically referred were M/s. Puttur Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore 8 and Central U.P. Gas Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur 9. 8 (2014) 361 ITR 290 9 Income Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2014 decided by High Court of Allahabad and reported in MANU/UP/2895/2016. 20 19) From submissions made by learned counsel for Revenue, who banked on reasoning given by AO, it can be gathered that entire thrust of AO was that process involved in filling up gas into cylinders does not amount to manufacture inasmuch as said process does not bring into existence new identifiable and distinctive goods. In first instance, no distinction was drawn between manufacture and production and matter was not looked into from angle as to whether aforesaid process would amount to production or not. Other reason which prevailed with AO and which was also argument of learned counsel for Revenue was that, on identical facts, Gujarat High Court had held that refilling LPG after purchasing from M/s. HPCL into small cylinders would not amount to manufacture. That was case which was decided in context of Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Court held that transfer of LPG from bulk containers into cylinders did not amount to process of manufacture. It is pertinent to point out that Section 2(16) of Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 defines manufacture and, therefore, entire case was examined keeping in view said definition of manufacture and issue was as to whether process amounted to manufacture or not. As pointed out above, question as to whether it amounts to production as well 21 did not arise for consideration. AO committed manifest error in relying upon said decision inasmuch as provisions with which we are concerned in instant case use words manufacture or production and are not limited to manufacture alone. 20) Judgment in cases of Servo-Med Industries Private Limited and Tara Agencies, which were cited by learned counsel for Revenue, may not apply to present case. They dealt with provision of Central Excise Act and, therefore, test of manufacture propounded on that case would not be applicable when dealing with cases under provisions of Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of Act which use both expressions manufacture and production . It has already been clarified in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. judgment. Insofar as judgment in Tara Agencies is concerned, factual scenario therein was totally different where three different stages in relation to tea were examined by this Court. Court held that procedure of blending of different qualities of tea would amount to processing of tea and it did not amount to manufacture or production of tea . Here, case set up by assessees is not that bottling of LPG is processing as distinguished from manufacture or production . We may, at this juncture, refer to judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Vinbros and 22 Company10 where bottling and blending of alcohol is held to be manufacture or production for purpose of Section 80-IB of Act. 21) We, thus, find that view of ITAT as affirmed by High Court is correct and, therefore, there is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. .............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) .............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 3, 2017. 10 (2015) 14 SCC 483 Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Mumbai v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd